Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Mike Romain wrote:
> Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
> emissions
Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
You don't get one without the other
Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
variables.
I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
> emissions
Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
You don't get one without the other
Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
variables.
I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Mike Romain wrote:
> Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
> emissions
Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
You don't get one without the other
Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
variables.
I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
> emissions
Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
You don't get one without the other
Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
variables.
I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Simon Juncal did pass the time by typing:
> Mike Romain wrote:
>> Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
>> emissions
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
O2, engine temperature, air density/flow, air temp, lots of sensors actually.
Computers have allowed car companies to play with not only the power
but the emissions. Most FI cars never reach peak power because they were
tuned to meet emission standards. That's why aftermarket chips and mods
can find so called "lost horsepower".
Carbs are tricky buggers. They like stable humidity and temperature to
stay perfectly tuned. Race cars that ran carbs were a fine example. Tuning
based on temperature and humidity, trying to guess if the air would be cold
or warm up by race time.
However, FI can run at angles that give carbs fits.
Carbs can run on fuel that would kill an injector.
My cat likes trout feast.
etc.
--
DougW
> Mike Romain wrote:
>> Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
>> emissions
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
O2, engine temperature, air density/flow, air temp, lots of sensors actually.
Computers have allowed car companies to play with not only the power
but the emissions. Most FI cars never reach peak power because they were
tuned to meet emission standards. That's why aftermarket chips and mods
can find so called "lost horsepower".
Carbs are tricky buggers. They like stable humidity and temperature to
stay perfectly tuned. Race cars that ran carbs were a fine example. Tuning
based on temperature and humidity, trying to guess if the air would be cold
or warm up by race time.
However, FI can run at angles that give carbs fits.
Carbs can run on fuel that would kill an injector.
My cat likes trout feast.
etc.
--
DougW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Simon Juncal did pass the time by typing:
> Mike Romain wrote:
>> Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
>> emissions
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
O2, engine temperature, air density/flow, air temp, lots of sensors actually.
Computers have allowed car companies to play with not only the power
but the emissions. Most FI cars never reach peak power because they were
tuned to meet emission standards. That's why aftermarket chips and mods
can find so called "lost horsepower".
Carbs are tricky buggers. They like stable humidity and temperature to
stay perfectly tuned. Race cars that ran carbs were a fine example. Tuning
based on temperature and humidity, trying to guess if the air would be cold
or warm up by race time.
However, FI can run at angles that give carbs fits.
Carbs can run on fuel that would kill an injector.
My cat likes trout feast.
etc.
--
DougW
> Mike Romain wrote:
>> Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
>> emissions
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
O2, engine temperature, air density/flow, air temp, lots of sensors actually.
Computers have allowed car companies to play with not only the power
but the emissions. Most FI cars never reach peak power because they were
tuned to meet emission standards. That's why aftermarket chips and mods
can find so called "lost horsepower".
Carbs are tricky buggers. They like stable humidity and temperature to
stay perfectly tuned. Race cars that ran carbs were a fine example. Tuning
based on temperature and humidity, trying to guess if the air would be cold
or warm up by race time.
However, FI can run at angles that give carbs fits.
Carbs can run on fuel that would kill an injector.
My cat likes trout feast.
etc.
--
DougW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Simon Juncal did pass the time by typing:
> Mike Romain wrote:
>> Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
>> emissions
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
O2, engine temperature, air density/flow, air temp, lots of sensors actually.
Computers have allowed car companies to play with not only the power
but the emissions. Most FI cars never reach peak power because they were
tuned to meet emission standards. That's why aftermarket chips and mods
can find so called "lost horsepower".
Carbs are tricky buggers. They like stable humidity and temperature to
stay perfectly tuned. Race cars that ran carbs were a fine example. Tuning
based on temperature and humidity, trying to guess if the air would be cold
or warm up by race time.
However, FI can run at angles that give carbs fits.
Carbs can run on fuel that would kill an injector.
My cat likes trout feast.
etc.
--
DougW
> Mike Romain wrote:
>> Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
>> emissions
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
O2, engine temperature, air density/flow, air temp, lots of sensors actually.
Computers have allowed car companies to play with not only the power
but the emissions. Most FI cars never reach peak power because they were
tuned to meet emission standards. That's why aftermarket chips and mods
can find so called "lost horsepower".
Carbs are tricky buggers. They like stable humidity and temperature to
stay perfectly tuned. Race cars that ran carbs were a fine example. Tuning
based on temperature and humidity, trying to guess if the air would be cold
or warm up by race time.
However, FI can run at angles that give carbs fits.
Carbs can run on fuel that would kill an injector.
My cat likes trout feast.
etc.
--
DougW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Wouldn't you think the Pro Stock race cars and their millions of
dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
solenoid orifice.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
>
> Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> variables.
>
> I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
solenoid orifice.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
>
> Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> variables.
>
> I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Wouldn't you think the Pro Stock race cars and their millions of
dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
solenoid orifice.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
>
> Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> variables.
>
> I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
solenoid orifice.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
>
> Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> variables.
>
> I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Wouldn't you think the Pro Stock race cars and their millions of
dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
solenoid orifice.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
>
> Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> variables.
>
> I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
solenoid orifice.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other
>
> Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real time.
>
> Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> variables.
>
> I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Back then, nobody cared. The VW Bugs were getting about the same, but with
a gas tank that basically sat in your lap, "stale air" heat that came right
off the cylinders, no cam bearings and a carburetor that you could rebuild
and tune blind folded. I think that test run was done on an oval track,
too.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44691485.7B93EFAE@***.net...
> If you use a magnifying glass and your imagination you may see
> where the brochure read a test run of fourteen hundred miles got sixty
> one.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > Practically every passenger car manufacturer is claiming at least forty
> > miles a gallon now, with at least one model, thanks to electronic fuel
> > injection. They could do better too, but they don't need to as yet.
> >
> > Earle
a gas tank that basically sat in your lap, "stale air" heat that came right
off the cylinders, no cam bearings and a carburetor that you could rebuild
and tune blind folded. I think that test run was done on an oval track,
too.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44691485.7B93EFAE@***.net...
> If you use a magnifying glass and your imagination you may see
> where the brochure read a test run of fourteen hundred miles got sixty
> one.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > Practically every passenger car manufacturer is claiming at least forty
> > miles a gallon now, with at least one model, thanks to electronic fuel
> > injection. They could do better too, but they don't need to as yet.
> >
> > Earle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
Back then, nobody cared. The VW Bugs were getting about the same, but with
a gas tank that basically sat in your lap, "stale air" heat that came right
off the cylinders, no cam bearings and a carburetor that you could rebuild
and tune blind folded. I think that test run was done on an oval track,
too.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44691485.7B93EFAE@***.net...
> If you use a magnifying glass and your imagination you may see
> where the brochure read a test run of fourteen hundred miles got sixty
> one.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > Practically every passenger car manufacturer is claiming at least forty
> > miles a gallon now, with at least one model, thanks to electronic fuel
> > injection. They could do better too, but they don't need to as yet.
> >
> > Earle
a gas tank that basically sat in your lap, "stale air" heat that came right
off the cylinders, no cam bearings and a carburetor that you could rebuild
and tune blind folded. I think that test run was done on an oval track,
too.
Earle
"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:44691485.7B93EFAE@***.net...
> If you use a magnifying glass and your imagination you may see
> where the brochure read a test run of fourteen hundred miles got sixty
> one.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > Practically every passenger car manufacturer is claiming at least forty
> > miles a gallon now, with at least one model, thanks to electronic fuel
> > injection. They could do better too, but they don't need to as yet.
> >
> > Earle